The "truth" is not somewhere between the claims of Willingham and those of the experts and UNC. Willingham is completely wrong; she reported the "age normalized or standard values" as being "estimated grade levels". The normal distribution (or "bell curve") is the basis for most statistical analysis. A standard value is based on the percentage of those in some reference group who made less than that raw value, reported as the value with that same percentile on a normal distribution specified by its M and SD (mean and standard deviation). Examples: IQ (M=100, SD=15), SAT Verbal (M=500,SD=50), SATA (M=10,SD=3). Always on a normalized scale, 17% of the scores will be less than (M-SD); 3%, 2 SD. For SAT Verbal those 450 and 400; for SATA, 7 and 4.

SATA standard values are age dependent. Thus the 10 means higer than half those your age, not grade 10. For someone 18, the RV of 14 is a SV of 10 and a grade equivalent of 13 (college freshmen).

Just as SV is age based, estimated grade level is based on the median raw score (M) for students in that grade. GLs for SATA are valid for 10-16, below 10 estimated by just extending the trend lines. Roughly 60% percent of the at risk group had estimated grade levels of 12 and above.

Now about those who Willingham claimed read like three year olds? While they were not reading below grade 4, they were still in that lowest 3% with scores more than 2 SD below the mean (or less than 400 SAT V).

With only 25 questions, the standard values are very sensitive to slight differences in age or the answer to one question. Those with LDs often score far lower on the timed vocabulary subtest than on the reading comprehension subtest which is not time limited.

Those with SAT V less than 450 will need remedial English and a lot of support, but all made above 400. That and the reforms are encouraging signs.

McAdoo. I wonder if he ever learned that it was Willingham who had turned him and Wiley in for cheating?

— Posted by unc70

Solid stuff. ABCERs will not be sleeping well for a looooong time to come.

The "truth" is not somewhere between the claims of Willingham and those of the experts and UNC. Willingham is completely wrong; she reported the "age normalized or standard values" as being "estimated grade levels". The normal distribution (or "bell curve") is the basis for most statistical analysis. A standard value is based on the percentage of those in some reference group who made less than that raw value, reported as the value with that same percentile on a normal distribution specified by its M and SD (mean and standard deviation). Examples: IQ (M=100, SD=15), SAT Verbal (M=500,SD=50), SATA (M=10,SD=3). Always on a normalized scale, 17% of the scores will be less than (M-SD); 3%, 2 SD. For SAT Verbal those 450 and 400; for SATA, 7 and 4.

SATA standard values are age dependent. Thus the 10 means higer than half those your age, not grade 10. For someone 18, the RV of 14 is a SV of 10 and a grade equivalent of 13 (college freshmen).

Just as SV is age based, estimated grade level is based on the median raw score (M) for students in that grade. GLs for SATA are valid for 10-16, below 10 estimated by just extending the trend lines. Roughly 60% percent of the at risk group had estimated grade levels of 12 and above.

Now about those who Willingham claimed read like three year olds? While they were not reading below grade 4, they were still in that lowest 3% with scores more than 2 SD below the mean (or less than 400 SAT V).

With only 25 questions, the standard values are very sensitive to slight differences in age or the answer to one question. Those with LDs often score far lower on the timed vocabulary subtest than on the reading comprehension subtest which is not time limited.

Those with SAT V less than 450 will need remedial English and a lot of support, but all made above 400. That and the reforms are encouraging signs.

McAdoo. I wonder if he ever learned that it was Willingham who had turned him and Wiley in for cheating?

— Posted by unc70

Solid stuff. ABCERs will not be sleeping well for a looooong time to come.

The "truth" is not somewhere between the claims of Willingham and those of the experts and UNC. Willingham is completely wrong; she reported the "age normalized or standard values" as being "estimated grade levels". The normal distribution (or "bell curve") is the basis for most statistical analysis. A standard value is based on the percentage of those in some reference group who made less than that raw value, reported as the value with that same percentile on a normal distribution specified by its M and SD (mean and standard deviation). Examples: IQ (M=100, SD=15), SAT Verbal (M=500,SD=50), SATA (M=10,SD=3). Always on a normalized scale, 17% of the scores will be less than (M-SD); 3%, 2 SD. For SAT Verbal those 450 and 400; for SATA, 7 and 4.

SATA standard values are age dependent. Thus the 10 means higer than half those your age, not grade 10. For someone 18, the RV of 14 is a SV of 10 and a grade equivalent of 13 (college freshmen).

Just as SV is age based, estimated grade level is based on the median raw score (M) for students in that grade. GLs for SATA are valid for 10-16, below 10 estimated by just extending the trend lines. Roughly 60% percent of the at risk group had estimated grade levels of 12 and above.

Now about those who Willingham claimed read like three year olds? While they were not reading below grade 4, they were still in that lowest 3% with scores more than 2 SD below the mean (or less than 400 SAT V).

With only 25 questions, the standard values are very sensitive to slight differences in age or the answer to one question. Those with LDs often score far lower on the timed vocabulary subtest than on the reading comprehension subtest which is not time limited.

Those with SAT V less than 450 will need remedial English and a lot of support, but all made above 400. That and the reforms are encouraging signs.

McAdoo. I wonder if he ever learned that it was Willingham who had turned him and Wiley in for cheating?

— Posted by unc70

Solid stuff. ABCERs will not be sleeping well for a looooong time to come.

The "truth" is not somewhere between the claims of Willingham and those of the experts and UNC. Willingham is completely wrong; she reported the "age normalized or standard values" as being "estimated grade levels". The normal distribution (or "bell curve") is the basis for most statistical analysis. A standard value is based on the percentage of those in some reference group who made less than that raw value, reported as the value with that same percentile on a normal distribution specified by its M and SD (mean and standard deviation). Examples: IQ (M=100, SD=15), SAT Verbal (M=500,SD=50), SATA (M=10,SD=3). Always on a normalized scale, 17% of the scores will be less than (M-SD); 3%, 2 SD. For SAT Verbal those 450 and 400; for SATA, 7 and 4.

SATA standard values are age dependent. Thus the 10 means higer than half those your age, not grade 10. For someone 18, the RV of 14 is a SV of 10 and a grade equivalent of 13 (college freshmen).

Just as SV is age based, estimated grade level is based on the median raw score (M) for students in that grade. GLs for SATA are valid for 10-16, below 10 estimated by just extending the trend lines. Roughly 60% percent of the at risk group had estimated grade levels of 12 and above.

Now about those who Willingham claimed read like three year olds? While they were not reading below grade 4, they were still in that lowest 3% with scores more than 2 SD below the mean (or less than 400 SAT V).

With only 25 questions, the standard values are very sensitive to slight differences in age or the answer to one question. Those with LDs often score far lower on the timed vocabulary subtest than on the reading comprehension subtest which is not time limited.

Those with SAT V less than 450 will need remedial English and a lot of support, but all made above 400. That and the reforms are encouraging signs.

McAdoo. I wonder if he ever learned that it was Willingham who had turned him and Wiley in for cheating?

— Posted by unc70

Solid stuff. ABCERs will not be sleeping well for a looooong time to come.

The "truth" is not somewhere between the claims of Willingham and those of the experts and UNC. Willingham is completely wrong; she reported the "age normalized or standard values" as being "estimated grade levels". The normal distribution (or "bell curve") is the basis for most statistical analysis. A standard value is based on the percentage of those in some reference group who made less than that raw value, reported as the value with that same percentile on a normal distribution specified by its M and SD (mean and standard deviation). Examples: IQ (M=100, SD=15), SAT Verbal (M=500,SD=50), SATA (M=10,SD=3). Always on a normalized scale, 17% of the scores will be less than (M-SD); 3%, 2 SD. For SAT Verbal those 450 and 400; for SATA, 7 and 4.

SATA standard values are age dependent. Thus the 10 means higer than half those your age, not grade 10. For someone 18, the RV of 14 is a SV of 10 and a grade equivalent of 13 (college freshmen).

Just as SV is age based, estimated grade level is based on the median raw score (M) for students in that grade. GLs for SATA are valid for 10-16, below 10 estimated by just extending the trend lines. Roughly 60% percent of the at risk group had estimated grade levels of 12 and above.

Now about those who Willingham claimed read like three year olds? While they were not reading below grade 4, they were still in that lowest 3% with scores more than 2 SD below the mean (or less than 400 SAT V).

With only 25 questions, the standard values are very sensitive to slight differences in age or the answer to one question. Those with LDs often score far lower on the timed vocabulary subtest than on the reading comprehension subtest which is not time limited.

Those with SAT V less than 450 will need remedial English and a lot of support, but all made above 400. That and the reforms are encouraging signs.

McAdoo. I wonder if he ever learned that it was Willingham who had turned him and Wiley in for cheating?

— Posted by unc70

Does this change the fact that UNCheat invented a dept to keep athletes eligible?

The "truth" is not somewhere between the claims of Willingham and those of the experts and UNC. Willingham is completely wrong; she reported the "age normalized or standard values" as being "estimated grade levels". The normal distribution (or "bell curve") is the basis for most statistical analysis. A standard value is based on the percentage of those in some reference group who made less than that raw value, reported as the value with that same percentile on a normal distribution specified by its M and SD (mean and standard deviation). Examples: IQ (M=100, SD=15), SAT Verbal (M=500,SD=50), SATA (M=10,SD=3). Always on a normalized scale, 17% of the scores will be less than (M-SD); 3%, 2 SD. For SAT Verbal those 450 and 400; for SATA, 7 and 4.

SATA standard values are age dependent. Thus the 10 means higer than half those your age, not grade 10. For someone 18, the RV of 14 is a SV of 10 and a grade equivalent of 13 (college freshmen).

Just as SV is age based, estimated grade level is based on the median raw score (M) for students in that grade. GLs for SATA are valid for 10-16, below 10 estimated by just extending the trend lines. Roughly 60% percent of the at risk group had estimated grade levels of 12 and above.

Now about those who Willingham claimed read like three year olds? While they were not reading below grade 4, they were still in that lowest 3% with scores more than 2 SD below the mean (or less than 400 SAT V).

With only 25 questions, the standard values are very sensitive to slight differences in age or the answer to one question. Those with LDs often score far lower on the timed vocabulary subtest than on the reading comprehension subtest which is not time limited.

Those with SAT V less than 450 will need remedial English and a lot of support, but all made above 400. That and the reforms are encouraging signs.

McAdoo. I wonder if he ever learned that it was Willingham who had turned him and Wiley in for cheating?

97% over the CNN threshold KatY girl...what's ever more hilar-e-ous is you girlz going all in on Willingham's info like it was the King James version of the bible...you grilz got taken to the woodshed on this and it's hurtin so bad all you can do is MOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!...no go sit down like a good little boy and quit eating your boogers...

BTW, thanks for admitting my superiority once again. After I skinned you 8 ways from Sunday on a lack of character I noticed you went running to the mods...

— Posted by RamfatherRedux

Oh please. A lack of character? I noticed you didn't call out your fellow tarholes when they were mocking Duke's QB who transferred due to his mother's brain cancer. Hypocrite much, numbnuts?

— Posted by KT called a Congressional hearin

Then you missed his post in the thread where he said

Keep it Classy UNC fans, you don't want to be in the same SS Classless boat as DoltSAC, KatY, Hal, Nips, Pwnt, and others...

— Posted by RamfatherRedux

Wait, you actually didn't miss it because you responded with

smitty is butthurt and whining about NC State posters when his ilk clearly do the same thing in the same thread.

You must have just forgotten. They say that the mind is the second thing to go.

— Posted by Guitarzan

Implying "keep it classy" is anything near the buttmad rage he drops on any other fanbase when something is said about his goddess Dean.

So you're going to crow victory when it's determined that the number was only 30%? Figures

— Posted by KT called a Congressional hearin

97% over the CNN threshold KatY girl...what's ever more hilar-e-ous is you girlz going all in on Willingham's info like it was the King James version of the bible...you grilz got taken to the woodshed on this and it's hurtin so bad all you can do is MOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!...no go sit down like a good little boy and quit eating your boogers...

BTW, thanks for admitting my superiority once again. After I skinned you 8 ways from Sunday on a lack of character I noticed you went running to the mods...

— Posted by RamfatherRedux

Oh please. A lack of character? I noticed you didn't call out your fellow tarholes when they were mocking Duke's QB who transferred due to his mother's brain cancer. Hypocrite much, numbnuts?

— Posted by KT called a Congressional hearin

Then you missed his post in the thread where he said

Keep it Classy UNC fans, you don't want to be in the same SS Classless boat as DoltSAC, KatY, Hal, Nips, Pwnt, and others...

— Posted by RamfatherRedux

Wait, you actually didn't miss it because you responded with

smitty is butthurt and whining about NC State posters when his ilk clearly do the same thing in the same thread.

You must have just forgotten. They say that the mind is the second thing to go.

— Posted by Guitarzan

Implying "keep it classy" is anything near the buttmad rage he drops on any other fanbase when something is said about his goddess Dean.

As I said before...Willingham let the cow out of the barn and now is trying to defend it. She can't walk it back or will lose all credibility, but this has gotten way beyond her control and took on a life of it's own. She got in over her head, and she is going to drown in the facts much to the howling of CrackPride cultists...

— Posted by RamfatherRedux

So you're going to crow victory when it's determined that the number was only 30%? Figures

— Posted by KT called a Congressional hearin

97% over the CNN threshold KatY girl...what's ever more hilar-e-ous is you girlz going all in on Willingham's info like it was the King James version of the bible...you grilz got taken to the woodshed on this and it's hurtin so bad all you can do is MOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!...no go sit down like a good little boy and quit eating your boogers...

BTW, thanks for admitting my superiority once again. After I skinned you 8 ways from Sunday on a lack of character I noticed you went running to the mods...

— Posted by RamfatherRedux

Oh please. A lack of character? I noticed you didn't call out your fellow tarholes when they were mocking Duke's QB who transferred due to his mother's brain cancer. Hypocrite much, numbnuts?

— Posted by KT called a Congressional hearin

Then you missed his post in the thread where he said

Keep it Classy UNC fans, you don't want to be in the same SS Classless boat as DoltSAC, KatY, Hal, Nips, Pwnt, and others...

— Posted by RamfatherRedux

Wait, you actually didn't miss it because you responded with

smitty is butthurt and whining about NC State posters when his ilk clearly do the same thing in the same thread.

You must have just forgotten. They say that the mind is the second thing to go.

Did you read the expert analyses? Remember her claim that 60% read below

— Posted by unc70

As I said before...Willingham let the cow out of the barn and now is trying to defend it. She can't walk it back or will lose all credibility, but this has gotten way beyond her control and took on a life of it's own. She got in over her head, and she is going to drown in the facts much to the howling of CrackPride cultists...

— Posted by RamfatherRedux

So you're going to crow victory when it's determined that the number was only 30%? Figures

— Posted by KT called a Congressional hearin

97% over the CNN threshold KatY girl...what's ever more hilar-e-ous is you girlz going all in on Willingham's info like it was the King James version of the bible...you grilz got taken to the woodshed on this and it's hurtin so bad all you can do is MOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!...no go sit down like a good little boy and quit eating your boogers...

BTW, thanks for admitting my superiority once again. After I skinned you 8 ways from Sunday on a lack of character I noticed you went running to the mods...

— Posted by RamfatherRedux

Oh please. A lack of character? I noticed you didn't call out your fellow tarholes when they were mocking Duke's QB who transferred due to his mother's brain cancer. Hypocrite much, numbnuts?

I have 3 degrees from UNC - ALL earned - not one "paper-only" class on my transcript. I would LOVE for someone credible to find that this was all a "mistake"... that UNC never admitted an athlete, even a "regular student", who could not even read at the high school level. Were the 3 experts hired by UNC to evaluate Willingham's work "credible"? From what I've seen they have the "credentials" and "qualifications" to be able to evaluate the information and make a judgment. However, their findings are "tainted" by having been hired by UNC. In a case like this, the "experts" finding in favor of the University that hired them, such findings always have been, always will be "suspect". My background enables me to evaluate Willingham's assertions, although I do not have the data and other information the hired experts had, therefore limiting my scrutiny. That said... the "test" she used to assess reading ability - a huge factor in this entire discussion - is neither perfect nor the best test for reading ability... but it does tell us something about the individual's that were tested... and there are LOTS of other information about athletes who were admitted to UNC. Set aside the focus on reading ability, and ask a very simple question - were/are athletes admitted to UNC who should not have been admitted due to significant/severe deficiencies in academic ability... the ability to do college level academic work at a university such as UNC? There is certainly ample evidence that points to a resounding "YES" as the answer! That said... some seem to have interpreted all of this to mean that ALL UNC athletes are deficient in reading and academic ability. That is NOT the case! Most UNC athletes are quite capable in the classroom... it is only a relative few who are lacking. But... those few are a few too many - they should never have been admitted. McAdoo (football McAdoo) is a prime example! UNC's handling of this entire "MESS" has been misguided, "clumsy" and too defensive!

— Posted by Objective Scientist

Did you read the expert analyses? Remember her claim that 60% read below

— Posted by unc70

As I said before...Willingham let the cow out of the barn and now is trying to defend it. She can't walk it back or will lose all credibility, but this has gotten way beyond her control and took on a life of it's own. She got in over her head, and she is going to drown in the facts much to the howling of CrackPride cultists...

— Posted by RamfatherRedux

So you're going to crow victory when it's determined that the number was only 30%? Figures

— Posted by KT called a Congressional hearin

97% over the CNN threshold KatY girl...what's ever more hilar-e-ous is you girlz going all in on Willingham's info like it was the King James version of the bible...you grilz got taken to the woodshed on this and it's hurtin so bad all you can do is MOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!...no go sit down like a good little boy and quit eating your boogers...

BTW, thanks for admitting my superiority once again. After I skinned you 8 ways from Sunday on a lack of character I noticed you went running to the mods...

I have 3 degrees from UNC - ALL earned - not one "paper-only" class on my transcript. I would LOVE for someone credible to find that this was all a "mistake"... that UNC never admitted an athlete, even a "regular student", who could not even read at the high school level. Were the 3 experts hired by UNC to evaluate Willingham's work "credible"? From what I've seen they have the "credentials" and "qualifications" to be able to evaluate the information and make a judgment. However, their findings are "tainted" by having been hired by UNC. In a case like this, the "experts" finding in favor of the University that hired them, such findings always have been, always will be "suspect". My background enables me to evaluate Willingham's assertions, although I do not have the data and other information the hired experts had, therefore limiting my scrutiny. That said... the "test" she used to assess reading ability - a huge factor in this entire discussion - is neither perfect nor the best test for reading ability... but it does tell us something about the individual's that were tested... and there are LOTS of other information about athletes who were admitted to UNC. Set aside the focus on reading ability, and ask a very simple question - were/are athletes admitted to UNC who should not have been admitted due to significant/severe deficiencies in academic ability... the ability to do college level academic work at a university such as UNC? There is certainly ample evidence that points to a resounding "YES" as the answer! That said... some seem to have interpreted all of this to mean that ALL UNC athletes are deficient in reading and academic ability. That is NOT the case! Most UNC athletes are quite capable in the classroom... it is only a relative few who are lacking. But... those few are a few too many - they should never have been admitted. McAdoo (football McAdoo) is a prime example! UNC's handling of this entire "MESS" has been misguided, "clumsy" and too defensive!

— Posted by Objective Scientist

Did you read the expert analyses? Remember her claim that 60% read below

— Posted by unc70

Yes... I am familiar with both the "expert" reports and Willingham's assertions. If I had the opportunity I would have a set of questions for both. I believe the "truth" of the matter lies somewhere between what Willingham states, what the "experts" conclude, and what the UNC administration claims. I find it very difficult to believe Willingham's 60% and would like to see the "evidence", the data, the research that supports that percentage. The "expert" opinions, even if they are valid totally or only to a small degree are tainted by the fact that UNC administrators selected them, hired them, paid them. I do not believe UNC administrators who claim that everything is 100% "above board" and that no issues exist with regard to the academic qualifications of athletes admitted to UNC. Set aside the specific charges such as Willingham's 60% number, likewise with the validity of the ability of the test used to measure reading ability at specific grade levels, etc. Ask one simple question: "Have some - SOME - EVEN a FEW - athletes been admitted to UNC who were significantly, seriously deficient in the academic knowledge and skills to succeed in the typical UNC classroom for any legitimate degree? I believe there is sufficient evidence to support a resounding "YES" answer to that question. If you look at a specific TEAM - football and/or basketball - the "few" becomes a much larger portion than the "few" is of the total of 700-800 athletes across all sports. It seems the admission of severely academically deficient athletes is "defended" and "justified" by claiming to - and actually providing - HUGE amounts of support for such athletes. Such support is both ineffective and wasted on those who only want to "play ball", have no motivation/desire to be a student, and for whom the focus is on increasing their draft status for the professional ranks.

I have 3 degrees from UNC - ALL earned - not one "paper-only" class on my transcript. I would LOVE for someone credible to find that this was all a "mistake"... that UNC never admitted an athlete, even a "regular student", who could not even read at the high school level. Were the 3 experts hired by UNC to evaluate Willingham's work "credible"? From what I've seen they have the "credentials" and "qualifications" to be able to evaluate the information and make a judgment. However, their findings are "tainted" by having been hired by UNC. In a case like this, the "experts" finding in favor of the University that hired them, such findings always have been, always will be "suspect". My background enables me to evaluate Willingham's assertions, although I do not have the data and other information the hired experts had, therefore limiting my scrutiny. That said... the "test" she used to assess reading ability - a huge factor in this entire discussion - is neither perfect nor the best test for reading ability... but it does tell us something about the individual's that were tested... and there are LOTS of other information about athletes who were admitted to UNC. Set aside the focus on reading ability, and ask a very simple question - were/are athletes admitted to UNC who should not have been admitted due to significant/severe deficiencies in academic ability... the ability to do college level academic work at a university such as UNC? There is certainly ample evidence that points to a resounding "YES" as the answer! That said... some seem to have interpreted all of this to mean that ALL UNC athletes are deficient in reading and academic ability. That is NOT the case! Most UNC athletes are quite capable in the classroom... it is only a relative few who are lacking. But... those few are a few too many - they should never have been admitted. McAdoo (football McAdoo) is a prime example! UNC's handling of this entire "MESS" has been misguided, "clumsy" and too defensive!

— Posted by Objective Scientist

Did you read the expert analyses? Remember her claim that 60% read below

— Posted by unc70

As I said before...Willingham let the cow out of the barn and now is trying to defend it. She can't walk it back or will lose all credibility, but this has gotten way beyond her control and took on a life of it's own. She got in over her head, and she is going to drown in the facts much to the howling of CrackPride cultists...

— Posted by RamfatherRedux

will lose all credibility

Unc troll taking about someone losing credibility...

— Posted by 903 Free Paul Frampton 2

Duke troll give "credibility" a bad name...903, you've been learnt and burnt so much in here credibility is going to sue you for defamation of character...

I have 3 degrees from UNC - ALL earned - not one "paper-only" class on my transcript. I would LOVE for someone credible to find that this was all a "mistake"... that UNC never admitted an athlete, even a "regular student", who could not even read at the high school level. Were the 3 experts hired by UNC to evaluate Willingham's work "credible"? From what I've seen they have the "credentials" and "qualifications" to be able to evaluate the information and make a judgment. However, their findings are "tainted" by having been hired by UNC. In a case like this, the "experts" finding in favor of the University that hired them, such findings always have been, always will be "suspect". My background enables me to evaluate Willingham's assertions, although I do not have the data and other information the hired experts had, therefore limiting my scrutiny. That said... the "test" she used to assess reading ability - a huge factor in this entire discussion - is neither perfect nor the best test for reading ability... but it does tell us something about the individual's that were tested... and there are LOTS of other information about athletes who were admitted to UNC. Set aside the focus on reading ability, and ask a very simple question - were/are athletes admitted to UNC who should not have been admitted due to significant/severe deficiencies in academic ability... the ability to do college level academic work at a university such as UNC? There is certainly ample evidence that points to a resounding "YES" as the answer! That said... some seem to have interpreted all of this to mean that ALL UNC athletes are deficient in reading and academic ability. That is NOT the case! Most UNC athletes are quite capable in the classroom... it is only a relative few who are lacking. But... those few are a few too many - they should never have been admitted. McAdoo (football McAdoo) is a prime example! UNC's handling of this entire "MESS" has been misguided, "clumsy" and too defensive!

— Posted by Objective Scientist

Did you read the expert analyses? Remember her claim that 60% read below

— Posted by unc70

As I said before...Willingham let the cow out of the barn and now is trying to defend it. She can't walk it back or will lose all credibility, but this has gotten way beyond her control and took on a life of it's own. She got in over her head, and she is going to drown in the facts much to the howling of CrackPride cultists...

I have 3 degrees from UNC - ALL earned - not one "paper-only" class on my transcript. I would LOVE for someone credible to find that this was all a "mistake"... that UNC never admitted an athlete, even a "regular student", who could not even read at the high school level. Were the 3 experts hired by UNC to evaluate Willingham's work "credible"? From what I've seen they have the "credentials" and "qualifications" to be able to evaluate the information and make a judgment. However, their findings are "tainted" by having been hired by UNC. In a case like this, the "experts" finding in favor of the University that hired them, such findings always have been, always will be "suspect". My background enables me to evaluate Willingham's assertions, although I do not have the data and other information the hired experts had, therefore limiting my scrutiny. That said... the "test" she used to assess reading ability - a huge factor in this entire discussion - is neither perfect nor the best test for reading ability... but it does tell us something about the individual's that were tested... and there are LOTS of other information about athletes who were admitted to UNC. Set aside the focus on reading ability, and ask a very simple question - were/are athletes admitted to UNC who should not have been admitted due to significant/severe deficiencies in academic ability... the ability to do college level academic work at a university such as UNC? There is certainly ample evidence that points to a resounding "YES" as the answer! That said... some seem to have interpreted all of this to mean that ALL UNC athletes are deficient in reading and academic ability. That is NOT the case! Most UNC athletes are quite capable in the classroom... it is only a relative few who are lacking. But... those few are a few too many - they should never have been admitted. McAdoo (football McAdoo) is a prime example! UNC's handling of this entire "MESS" has been misguided, "clumsy" and too defensive!

— Posted by Objective Scientist

Did you read the expert analyses? Remember her claim that 60% read below

— Posted by unc70

As I said before...Willingham let the cow out of the barn and now is trying to defend it. She can't walk it back or will lose all credibility, but this has gotten way beyond her control and took on a life of it's own. She got in over her head, and she is going to drown in the facts much to the howling of CrackPride cultists...

— Posted by RamfatherRedux

So you're going to crow victory when it's determined that the number was only 30%? Figures

I have 3 degrees from UNC - ALL earned - not one "paper-only" class on my transcript. I would LOVE for someone credible to find that this was all a "mistake"... that UNC never admitted an athlete, even a "regular student", who could not even read at the high school level. Were the 3 experts hired by UNC to evaluate Willingham's work "credible"? From what I've seen they have the "credentials" and "qualifications" to be able to evaluate the information and make a judgment. However, their findings are "tainted" by having been hired by UNC. In a case like this, the "experts" finding in favor of the University that hired them, such findings always have been, always will be "suspect". My background enables me to evaluate Willingham's assertions, although I do not have the data and other information the hired experts had, therefore limiting my scrutiny. That said... the "test" she used to assess reading ability - a huge factor in this entire discussion - is neither perfect nor the best test for reading ability... but it does tell us something about the individual's that were tested... and there are LOTS of other information about athletes who were admitted to UNC. Set aside the focus on reading ability, and ask a very simple question - were/are athletes admitted to UNC who should not have been admitted due to significant/severe deficiencies in academic ability... the ability to do college level academic work at a university such as UNC? There is certainly ample evidence that points to a resounding "YES" as the answer! That said... some seem to have interpreted all of this to mean that ALL UNC athletes are deficient in reading and academic ability. That is NOT the case! Most UNC athletes are quite capable in the classroom... it is only a relative few who are lacking. But... those few are a few too many - they should never have been admitted. McAdoo (football McAdoo) is a prime example! UNC's handling of this entire "MESS" has been misguided, "clumsy" and too defensive!

— Posted by Objective Scientist

Did you read the expert analyses? Remember her claim that 60% read below

— Posted by unc70

As I said before...Willingham let the cow out of the barn and now is trying to defend it. She can't walk it back or will lose all credibility, but this has gotten way beyond her control and took on a life of it's own. She got in over her head, and she is going to drown in the facts much to the howling of CrackPride cultists...

I have 3 degrees from UNC - ALL earned - not one "paper-only" class on my transcript. I would LOVE for someone credible to find that this was all a "mistake"... that UNC never admitted an athlete, even a "regular student", who could not even read at the high school level. Were the 3 experts hired by UNC to evaluate Willingham's work "credible"? From what I've seen they have the "credentials" and "qualifications" to be able to evaluate the information and make a judgment. However, their findings are "tainted" by having been hired by UNC. In a case like this, the "experts" finding in favor of the University that hired them, such findings always have been, always will be "suspect". My background enables me to evaluate Willingham's assertions, although I do not have the data and other information the hired experts had, therefore limiting my scrutiny. That said... the "test" she used to assess reading ability - a huge factor in this entire discussion - is neither perfect nor the best test for reading ability... but it does tell us something about the individual's that were tested... and there are LOTS of other information about athletes who were admitted to UNC. Set aside the focus on reading ability, and ask a very simple question - were/are athletes admitted to UNC who should not have been admitted due to significant/severe deficiencies in academic ability... the ability to do college level academic work at a university such as UNC? There is certainly ample evidence that points to a resounding "YES" as the answer! That said... some seem to have interpreted all of this to mean that ALL UNC athletes are deficient in reading and academic ability. That is NOT the case! Most UNC athletes are quite capable in the classroom... it is only a relative few who are lacking. But... those few are a few too many - they should never have been admitted. McAdoo (football McAdoo) is a prime example! UNC's handling of this entire "MESS" has been misguided, "clumsy" and too defensive!

— Posted by Objective Scientist

Did you read the expert analyses? Remember her claim that 60% read below

I assume since UNC officials had such a "strong reply" that we should forget that UNC has already admitted to no show classes, students copying and cut and paste papers, an athletic dept that steered marginal athletes to classes with no attendance and a promised A to help remain eligible. What a sham.

Amen Scientist! Willingham might not be entirely right, but she isn't entirely wrong either. I won't hold my breath waiting to see the report that provides a proper explanation of why an entire department of study had to create BS classes and make unauthorized grade changes. Until that one comes out, good luck rationalizing all this.

I have 3 degrees from UNC - ALL earned - not one "paper-only" class on my transcript. I would LOVE for someone credible to find that this was all a "mistake"... that UNC never admitted an athlete, even a "regular student", who could not even read at the high school level. Were the 3 experts hired by UNC to evaluate Willingham's work "credible"? From what I've seen they have the "credentials" and "qualifications" to be able to evaluate the information and make a judgment. However, their findings are "tainted" by having been hired by UNC. In a case like this, the "experts" finding in favor of the University that hired them, such findings always have been, always will be "suspect". My background enables me to evaluate Willingham's assertions, although I do not have the data and other information the hired experts had, therefore limiting my scrutiny. That said... the "test" she used to assess reading ability - a huge factor in this entire discussion - is neither perfect nor the best test for reading ability... but it does tell us something about the individual's that were tested... and there are LOTS of other information about athletes who were admitted to UNC. Set aside the focus on reading ability, and ask a very simple question - were/are athletes admitted to UNC who should not have been admitted due to significant/severe deficiencies in academic ability... the ability to do college level academic work at a university such as UNC? There is certainly ample evidence that points to a resounding "YES" as the answer! That said... some seem to have interpreted all of this to mean that ALL UNC athletes are deficient in reading and academic ability. That is NOT the case! Most UNC athletes are quite capable in the classroom... it is only a relative few who are lacking. But... those few are a few too many - they should never have been admitted. McAdoo (football McAdoo) is a prime example! UNC's handling of this entire "MESS" has been misguided, "clumsy" and too defensive!

We have just posted to the new Carolina Commitment website, http://carolinacommitment.unc.edu/, the executive summary and full reports from the independent analysis of a data set that was the basis for public claims about the reading ability of a group of student-athletes at Carolina who had been screened for possible learning differences or learning disabilities between 2004 and 2012.

We took the claims seriously and committed publicly to analyzing the data set. Outside experts examined the data and found no evidence to support the literacy claims that have been widely reported in news media accounts and via social media.

We fully accept that there are many important questions about the best way to balance athletics and academics both here at Carolina and across the nation. It is important for the media and the community to be able to ask tough questions and to have a respectful debate on these issues. Carolina is committed to participating actively in that conversation. We also understand that there are lingering questions about our programs, which is why we initiated an independent inquiry that is ongoing.

— Posted by unc70

Who is paying the salary of these "outside experts".

See my dog won't bite my hand either. It's important to determine who is doing the feeding.

We have just posted to the new Carolina Commitment website, http://carolinacommitment.unc.edu/, the executive summary and full reports from the independent analysis of a data set that was the basis for public claims about the reading ability of a group of student-athletes at Carolina who had been screened for possible learning differences or learning disabilities between 2004 and 2012.

We took the claims seriously and committed publicly to analyzing the data set. Outside experts examined the data and found no evidence to support the literacy claims that have been widely reported in news media accounts and via social media.

We fully accept that there are many important questions about the best way to balance athletics and academics both here at Carolina and across the nation. It is important for the media and the community to be able to ask tough questions and to have a respectful debate on these issues. Carolina is committed to participating actively in that conversation. We also understand that there are lingering questions about our programs, which is why we initiated an independent inquiry that is ongoing.

— Posted by unc70

Who is paying the salary of these "outside experts".

See my dog won't bite my hand either. It's important to determine who is doing the feeding.

We have just posted to the new Carolina Commitment website, http://carolinacommitment.unc.edu/, the executive summary and full reports from the independent analysis of a data set that was the basis for public claims about the reading ability of a group of student-athletes at Carolina who had been screened for possible learning differences or learning disabilities between 2004 and 2012.

We took the claims seriously and committed publicly to analyzing the data set. Outside experts examined the data and found no evidence to support the literacy claims that have been widely reported in news media accounts and via social media.

We fully accept that there are many important questions about the best way to balance athletics and academics both here at Carolina and across the nation. It is important for the media and the community to be able to ask tough questions and to have a respectful debate on these issues. Carolina is committed to participating actively in that conversation. We also understand that there are lingering questions about our programs, which is why we initiated an independent inquiry that is ongoing.